At the time of the first SL, Saints were on around 6,000 averages and Wigan around 10,000. The two towns are about 6 miles apart. By your theories this would have produced a merged team with an attendance of 15 to 16,000.

Those are not my theories.

It's a stupid and transparent trick to attribute an argument to me that I do not and never have held then argue against it.

I agree with Lyndsay when he said "there were too many clubs chasing too few resources". Got it now???

Forget "mergers" that was his suggestion as a way round the problem. The clubs said no 17 years ago so again forget mergers and deal with the debate don't twist it.

Wigan and saints were two of the biggest clubs with loads of fans, loads of local juniors, and money men prepared to take them on so these two clubs had the resources to be two of the first picks for Superleague.

It really is very very silly to suggest saints and wigan should have merged in the mid nineties. Good gawd, they were very successful before SL and have been since.

It's very hard to debate with you when you come up with contrived nonsenses like this.

let's try it with you........

You say at the time of superleague big city Bradford could only attract 5,000 fans despite being in the famous old Odsal ground in a city of 400,000 people. Keighley were rapidly growing to the same size and in Division Two at that. they had shown in the cup how they could mix it with the big boys and their marketing was second to none.

By "your theories" which are proven because odsal had to be sold and bradford went bust, the Bulls should have left odsal and merged with keighley. Clearly the keighley marketing dream team would have quadrupled Bradford's 5,000 and continued to grow the "Pennine Cougars" brand. After all the club was planning to move into markets in north yorkshire, north lancashire and they also had the large area of north Bradford to expose to Cougarmania.

Demolish the old condemned stand, turn the pitch around and utilise the cricket field and Bob Sherunkle.

25,000 crowds and success that would still be rolling on today........

If were looking for monetary losses of great magnitude we will find tens of millions completely wasted by M62 clubs who have taken such money from SKY and squandered the lot failing in Superleague. Now that's a scandal.

£700K was small beer compared.

The RFL were right to take Samuels money, Moss and Roberts money and put in themselves to keep Wales going in SL.

It's sad that the game could not find enough money (maybe more should have gone to Wales from the SKY pot) to keep a Welsh SL club going, but there is a legacy.

More kids started playing, some signed on at SL clubs and still will do. two championship clubs have emerged and hopefully their juniors under the guidance of Wigan (and Widnes) will keep the pot boiling.

The idea take in isolation that the RFL just "wasted" £700K is simplistic biased nonsense....

M62 clubs may sometimes have squandered Sky TV money but they did, at least, earn it. The RFL sell the TV rights to the club games (which the clubs have agreed to) and then divide the cash up. It is not the RFL's money, they merely safeguard it for the clubs.

The difference is that Crusaders wasted money that they did not earn and had to come from other sources. This tends to mean cutbacks in other areas such as community development officers. In the meantime the open age game in Wales has gone backwards.

1. The only difference between the game of the past and the game of today is the Sky money.

2. All the current success of Leeds is due to the influx of that money and rich entrepreneurs.

3. You think that contraction and the loss of teams is progress. I beg to differ.

4. You think that to lose whole areas from the game of RL due to killing clubs because of greed and exclusion is great so long as the 10 or twelve you want at the trough survive.

5. I think there is another way and that is expansion of SL not contraction. I and others who share this view or who support the admission of some of the CC teams to an expanded top division.

6. Lyndsay is not some messiah

7. Beacuse a team is flying high at some point, that does not mean it will always be that way, ask Bradford or indeed Leeds before Caddick.

1. That's true and SKY money can make big clubs bigger becuase it provides adequate additional investment to do that.

It's a fact proven by events that if you give SKY money to small clubs they fail becuase the SKY money alone won't make them Superleague clubs. Clubs need fans, players and their own money in adequate amounts before the SKY money can be effective investment.

This is why Wigan and saints and Wire can use the SKY money to grow, yet all Oldham (LOOKEY HERE we're back on track) or keighley could do with the SKY money is waste it......

2. TOTALLY WRONG Leeds had five figure crowds depsite not winning anything, their fanbase was the bedrock of their success then hetheringtons junior development took that on. They don't need propping up by Caddick. Your totally wrong and it's hard to debate with you when you pressent no real facts, and create falsehoods.

3. Totally false I don't propose the loss of teams.

I was at the Hunslet meeting when we nearly went, Bramley went this year I was at the last game before York went, Rochdale went etc etc.

What do you propose - give these clubs SKY money REALLY????

Rather than tell you what you thing I am courteous enough to ASK.

4. Again ASK and don't be so rude.

I think the game has to deliver a self sustaining elite league for the following reasons

a. To survive as a professional game

b. To deliver the SKY contract

That may be hard on second tier teams but it has been hard on them since the divisional split in 1973.

Since 1973 exclusion has not led to "losing whole areas of the game".

Since 1996 it hasn't either. You seem to confuse "the game" with semi pro clubs.

the only club to be lost apart from expansion clubs is Bramley, well they play RL in the schools, Stanningley are a mega club that produces players and the good people of West leeds get themselves off to headingley.

Bramleys dissapearance hasn't lost the area to the game. How can you expect me to debate with you with cointrived nonsenses like this???

5. Greed?? Trough??? What are yo on about? the game has to deliver an Elite league to get £90M - live with it for without is there is disaster. You and your mates think that we can return to the past, we can't if we waste the SKY money on all inclusiveness the game will be at it's lowest ebb ever.

6. Messiah??? Don't be stupid, just accept he said too many clubs were chasing too few resources. He was right, since that has been partly addressed the game has more fans, has expanded around the country and is played professionally, and attracts a big fat SKY contract.

I'm loving it......

7. I asked Bradford and they say they are a massive club traceable back to the 1860's. They've had some downs but have always been big enough to pick themselves up and rise again. last time they did this they ended up being the most successful club in Superleagues first decade.

I then asked leeds and again traceable right back to victorian days, always been heavily supported, never been out of the top league and the most successful club by far of Superleague second decade.

BUT (just watch what i do here) OLDHAM are not as big as these clubs and they consequently cannot survive setbacks the same way Leeds and bradford can. They cannot and di not make use of the SKY money because it wasn't enough to make a small club big.

It's not enough to make cas a big club or Salford a big club or HKR a big club yet they are IN superleague.

Any idea to increase the size of superleague and stretch the SKY money further would be an economic catastrophe.

Don't you get this??

Come on lets deal with one point at a time.

Divvying up SKY money 14 ways has led to several SL clubs being unable to compete on the field, a couple of clubs have to rely on private money to survive, and about £8,000,000 in losses have occured.

So you think that SL should fly in the face of this and expand.

Do me the favour of explaining exactly how this will work.

1. Which clubs? (let's go for 16)2. How will the money divvy up??3. How will the 16 club competition reduce losses4. How will it be more competetive.

Explain to me your alternative plan and how it will work in detail please...........

It was only around 800k when Oldham were in SL. The club was under constant pressure to upgrade their facilities, eventually forcing them to sell cheap on a promise from the council and move to the unaffordable Boundary Park. It was the demise of the club. After relegation to the bottom division we were then only allowed back into the fold if we played without any money from the governing body whatsoever. I get the feeling that if Sky pulled out of RL there would only be about three or four SL clubs which would survive and the strongest teams would emerge from the deprived Championship divisions.

It was only around 800k when Oldham were in SL. The club was under constant pressure to upgrade their facilities, eventually forcing them to sell cheap on a promise from the council and move to the unaffordable Boundary Park. It was the demise of the club. After relegation to the bottom division we were then only allowed back into the fold if we played without any money from the governing body whatsoever. I get the feeling that if Sky pulled out of RL there would only be about three or four SL clubs which would survive and the strongest teams would emerge from the deprived Championship divisions.

the club had been going down the nick for decades: what you are decribing is the last chapter in its demise. Surely the fact thsat the club was in thre position you describe is evidence of that, rather thsna it being the cause itself.

M62 clubs may sometimes have squandered Sky TV money but they did, at least, earn it.

Do your research.

Several years ago Stevo who works for SKY and knows more than you do said it's a crime that some clubs don't spend up to the cap and don't compete. So they hardly "earn" the SKY money they pinch it.

After 17 years clubs are still coming into SL and not paying their way and fulfilling their part of the contract.

This is why I supported Bradford who spent full cap as long as they could.

As for Crusaders your la la fingers in the ears not listening.

The RFL were right to put as much money into wales as they could, the game desperately needs new areas and new countries at international level. they were desperate BUT understandable actions and all you do is put the boot in.

Oh and has the "open age game gone backwards" in Wales????

Best not boot out London then eh? Don't want things going backwards there do we.

When Stevo gets a degree in economics then he'll know as much as me about this.

Clubs not paying the full cap provide opposition for those that do, Otherwise you'd have a five team league with little commercial value. Some teams contribute more to the value of the contract than others but they all contribute.

Crusaders, however, did nothing to get that 700 thousand. It was a pure loss for the game.

The Welsh adult league has more or less collapsed with few fixtures being fufilled.

1. That's true and SKY money can make big clubs bigger becuase it provides adequate additional investment to do that.

It's a fact proven by events that if you give SKY money to small clubs they fail becuase the SKY money alone won't make them Superleague clubs. Clubs need fans, players and their own money in adequate amounts before the SKY money can be effective investment.

This is why Wigan and saints and Wire can use the SKY money to grow, yet all Oldham (LOOKEY HERE we're back on track) or keighley could do with the SKY money is waste it......

2. TOTALLY WRONG Leeds had five figure crowds depsite not winning anything, their fanbase was the bedrock of their success then hetheringtons junior development took that on. They don't need propping up by Caddick. Your totally wrong and it's hard to debate with you when you pressent no real facts, and create falsehoods.

3. Totally false I don't propose the loss of teams.

I was at the Hunslet meeting when we nearly went, Bramley went this year I was at the last game before York went, Rochdale went etc etc.

What do you propose - give these clubs SKY money REALLY????

Rather than tell you what you thing I am courteous enough to ASK.

4. Again ASK and don't be so rude.

I think the game has to deliver a self sustaining elite league for the following reasons

a. To survive as a professional game

b. To deliver the SKY contract

That may be hard on second tier teams but it has been hard on them since the divisional split in 1973.

Since 1973 exclusion has not led to "losing whole areas of the game".

Since 1996 it hasn't either. You seem to confuse "the game" with semi pro clubs.

the only club to be lost apart from expansion clubs is Bramley, well they play RL in the schools, Stanningley are a mega club that produces players and the good people of West leeds get themselves off to headingley.

Bramleys dissapearance hasn't lost the area to the game. How can you expect me to debate with you with cointrived nonsenses like this???

5. Greed?? Trough??? What are yo on about? the game has to deliver an Elite league to get £90M - live with it for without is there is disaster. You and your mates think that we can return to the past, we can't if we waste the SKY money on all inclusiveness the game will be at it's lowest ebb ever.

6. Messiah??? Don't be stupid, just accept he said too many clubs were chasing too few resources. He was right, since that has been partly addressed the game has more fans, has expanded around the country and is played professionally, and attracts a big fat SKY contract.

I'm loving it......

7. I asked Bradford and they say they are a massive club traceable back to the 1860's. They've had some downs but have always been big enough to pick themselves up and rise again. last time they did this they ended up being the most successful club in Superleagues first decade.

I then asked leeds and again traceable right back to victorian days, always been heavily supported, never been out of the top league and the most successful club by far of Superleague second decade.

BUT (just watch what i do here) OLDHAM are not as big as these clubs and they consequently cannot survive setbacks the same way Leeds and bradford can. They cannot and di not make use of the SKY money because it wasn't enough to make a small club big.

It's not enough to make cas a big club or Salford a big club or HKR a big club yet they are IN superleague.

Any idea to increase the size of superleague and stretch the SKY money further would be an economic catastrophe.

Don't you get this??

Come on lets deal with one point at a time.

Divvying up SKY money 14 ways has led to several SL clubs being unable to compete on the field, a couple of clubs have to rely on private money to survive, and about £8,000,000 in losses have occured.

So you think that SL should fly in the face of this and expand.

Do me the favour of explaining exactly how this will work.

1. Which clubs? (let's go for 16)2. How will the money divvy up??3. How will the 16 club competition reduce losses4. How will it be more competetive.

Explain to me your alternative plan and how it will work in detail please...........

1. Clubs do need more than the Sky money. Nobody is denying that. Clubs can find it. If they don't, nobody is proposing them for SL. Bradford are an example of a big club that couldn't.

Keighley never had the big Sky money. You know that. Don't even go there. If Oldham had had a stadium delivered on a plate like Wigan did, despite the fact that they were in financial trouble, maybe they would have been successful. Wigan have been always an RL power but they have messed up several times in a major way but hey they are a big club so that dosn't count.

Perpignan are a small club that beat the odds and are now a big club. Huddersfield also. They were down to 400 in a rotting stadium, remember.

2. No, you are wrong. Leeds were down to around a 6,000 average before SL. You love your research and apparently have unlimited time so loook it up. Caddick rescued an almost bankrupt club. Look that up too. So a combination of Caddicks investment, Sky money and Hetherington's good management righted the ship. Today, indeed they are self sustaining although they have to feed out their juniors to Hunslet apparently.

3.Whilst you do not openly advocate the loss of teams, your total denial of any access to SL for any lower teams and your espousal of a ring fenced, unchanging top division, will result in the loss of the lower tier. You know Hunslet's last tilt at the top was shot down and now look at them. Keighley also.

When SL and Murdoch came along, the first offer was refused. He had to come back with extra millions for the excluded clubs. This was reduced in subsequent contracts, as was the share for SL because of the position the game was in. Now the game is in a much stronger position vis a vis Sky. I am of the opinion they need us almost as much as we need them. So, yes, Sky money was given to the lower tier at the onset and I see no reason why we can't negotitate from that position again. It might not work, but hwo knows. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You SL zealots seem so damn scared to rock the SL boat and the RFL and SLE are the same, that they will never approach Sky about anything.

4. Firstly, you are the epitome of courtesy. How could I be so wrong. Your agressive, demanding self righteous assertion of your divine correctness on all things RL reaps you what you sow in reply. Sorry.

The need to deliver a self sustaining top tier for Sky is agreed but it hasn't happened, has it? half of the top tier clubs arn't self sustaining.

The difference between you and me is that you want a ring fenced, unchanging SL elite and I would wish for either an expanded SL or a change in the membership to assist the lower tier as and when practical. The knowledge that there is a route to the top should stimulate crowds and investment in some CC teams and I don't mean a hopeless application to be granted a licence from a self serving cabal.

Since 1976 we have lost York, Keighley twice, Gateshead, Whitehaven, Sheffield, London/ Fulham, several times,Doncaster, I forget how many. The fact that they all ultimately either reconstituted or reformed due to the sheer willpower and grit of their supporters is amazing but make no mistake, we lost them. They came back weaker for the most part.

I am not confusing the whole game with the pro/semi pro clubs but is it not that area of the game which is under discussion here. Furthermore, at the risk of being accused of being rude, is it not your contention that only SL clubs can sustain really good amateur leagues and the others are all marginal ? I thought I read your posts proclaiming that.

5. Yes we need the elite but it need not be ringfenced. Furthermore, Sky has given of it's largesse to sustain the lower tier in the past. I think they should be re vsiited on that point.

6. We've been over that before. The arrival of the Sky investment was a lucky, very lucky, accident.

7. The humpty dumpty club self destructed when they split into soccer and Northern Union clubs. The Northern Union club were a minnow until after WW11. They died in 1964 with crowds in the hundreds. they died last year and the present re incarnation is on probation until it proves successful. Are they the example you want to cite as a big club?. Maybe but not one noted for fiscal probity, Sky money or not.

Leeds are big but I think, seeing as you are hearking back to the historical past, were in the 2nd division in its first incarnation ( You know the one where Keighley were promoted in the early 1900s). But I will yield that they are a big, successful club but they needed Carrick's investment and Sky money. If the RU side had become as big as he wanted they might even be playing 2nd fiddle at Headingley. They were bailed out by a man dreaming of a huge RU club.

Oldham fell a long way. They might never get back but they were a major RL power, check their honours board, they had a 5 to 6 year run in the 1st Division immediately prior to SL. The town is big enough, bigger than Wigan I believe and with no premier league soccer team as a rival. The ground is fertile for a big club. It might never materialise but the potential is there whatever you say to the contrary.

I have two points to make re the Division of Sky money.

1. We should see if we can get more. Both parties need each other and they are getting the game for cheap. Alternatively, let us approach other broadcasters now in the sporting arena.

2. Notwithstanding point 1, there needs to be a revolving membership of SL, the goodies need to be shared amongst more than the current favoured few. Indeed, spread the largesse. The noises coming from the RFL and a couple of club chairman would seem to indicate that this might be being considered. You just might find yourself on the wrong side of history on the p and r debate. Time will tell.

As regards your laundry list at the end of your post.

Firstly we need to see if we can coax some more cash from Sky both to stabilise existing strugglers and to subsidise any extra SL clubs.

Secondly, if that fails, then we need to change the league business model. Clearly fully pro clubs are only sustainable at Wigan, Warrington and Leeds on their own merits. We have some others who compete because of sugar daddies, many of whom are currently blinking and hinting at funding cuts, and then we have the strugglers who are losing money. We need to re evaluate if we need a fully pro competition. If wages were reduced we might have a sustainable SL even at 16 clubs. The game cannot successfully operate at a Professional level except at a very small number of clubs.

The game was on BBC for years and widely viewed when operating as a semi pro league. It can be done again. A fully pro league is the holy grail but if it can't be done, then it can't be done.

The level of competition will, as always, depend on the recruitment of players and the standard of coaching and each club will be responsible for achieving the necessary standards as they are now.

1. When Stevo gets a degree in economics then he'll know as much as me about this.

2. Clubs not paying the full cap provide opposition for those that do, Crusaders, however, did nothing.

3. The Welsh adult league has more or less collapsed with few fixtures being fufilled.

1. You know more about the game than Stevo

2. Clearly Crusaders provided opposition too or was I dreaming watching their opener against Leeds, and their run to and through the play off's with Nobby

3. If crusaders had kept going in South Wales so would the game, they didn't and you remark on the game going downhill yet the double standard is apparently if Broncos disappear you say it will have no effect on the game in the south east.

In a nutshell I'm not interested in this stuff, claiming to know more than Stevo, and being ambiguous such that the only conclusion I can draw is a nasty little bias against Crusaders and Broncos.

2. Clearly Crusaders provided opposition too or was I dreaming watching their opener against Leeds, and their run to and through the play off's with Nobby

And I'm not disputing that but they were advanced 700k on the basis of TV rights but never played those games.

3. If crusaders had kept going in South Wales so would the game, they didn't and you remark on the game going downhill yet the double standard is apparently if Broncos disappear you say it will have no effect on the game in the south east.

In a nutshell I'm not interested in this stuff, claiming to know more than Steve, and being ambiguous such that the only conclusion I can draw is a nasty little bias against Crusaders and Broncos.

Back to the magic wand. If we had 80 million pounds to invest in Broncos then they'd be fine....

Great logic but misses the point we don't have 80 million and Crusaders did go bust and always were going to go bust.

What do they have to do with Crusaders taking TV money in advance and then quitting SL having not played those games?

When I earn my pay, it's not my bosses' business how I spend the cash.

If I ask for a payday advance and then never work those hours, it's not much of an excuse to point the finger at how other employees ###### their wages up a wall on a Friday night. It was their money to ###### up a wall, they earned it.

1. If Oldham had had a stadium delivered on a plate like Wigan did, despite the fact that they were in financial trouble, maybe they would have been successful. Wigan have been always an RL power but they have messed up several times in a major way but hey they are a big club so that dosn't count.

2. Sky money was given to the lower tier at the onset and I see no reason why we can't negotitate from that position again. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You SL zealots seem so damn scared to rock the SL boat and the RFL and SLE are the same, that they will never approach Sky about anything.re the Division of Sky money, We should see if we can get more.we need to see if we can coax some more cash from Sky

3. If that fails, then we need to change the league business model. Clearly fully pro clubs are only sustainable at Wigan, Warrington and Leeds on their own merits. We need to re evaluate if we need a fully pro competition. If wages were reduced we might have a sustainable SL even at 16 clubs. The game cannot successfully operate at a Professional level

1. Wigan are a far bigger RL club than Oldham and have far more money, far more people interested in investing in them far more fans and far more quality local players, I have checked the Oldham Honours board and post 1960 they have won nowt and not even been runners up in a major final?

Wigan are far bigger than Oldham are they REALLY???

2. So your saying RFL/SLE could well have left shedloads of money in the pot at SKY.

What evidence do you have?????

3. It'll no longer be a Superleague at 16 clubs with reduced wages.

It's the old first division your talking about your back to recreating the past which was a big failure. However good times for keighley in those latter days. I hope they come back for you but on the above key "arguments" I've got to say "I'm out".......